On 10/4/05, Janis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forgot to mention that I'll fix this.
Great! :)
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:16:58PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 12:43:35PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
> > >is there anything I can provide you with to have a better guess? I'm
> > >definately willing to debug if you direct me...
> >
> > Unfortunately, I think we need a dejag
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 12:43:35PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
> >is there anything I can provide you with to have a better guess? I'm
> >definately willing to debug if you direct me...
>
> Unfortunately, I think we need a dejagnu expert here, I have no idea how
> to debug these things...
>
> If no
is there anything I can provide you with to have a better guess? I'm
definately willing to debug if you direct me...
Unfortunately, I think we need a dejagnu expert here, I have no idea how
to debug these things...
If nobody can provide help in the next few days, please file a bug-report.
Th
On 10/4/05, FX Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This testcase should only be run if there is a 128-bit integer kind
> available. This looks like it's not the case here, but then why is
> check_effective_target_fortran_large_int returning true?
>
> I can't really understand that. What are you tc
This testcase should only be run if there is a 128-bit integer kind
available. This looks like it's not the case here, but then why is
check_effective_target_fortran_large_int returning true?
I can't really understand that. What are you tcl/expect/dejagnu versions?
